[Kuruharan]

The term "Dark Ages" is what is in question. It no longer refers to an actual historical period, but to our "dark" or scanty knowledge of the years roughly from AD 500 to roughly AD 900 or 1000 in western Europe. Even this is being changed by recent archeology, and a growing realization of the interconnectedness of other cultures, not the least of which are the Arab, Byzantine, and, more subtly, Chinese cultures. 20th century scholarship increasingly demonstrates the need for medievalists to analyze the diffusion of ideas and technology from the east (well documented in their own right) during this time. In other words, the term "Dark Ages" is too Euro-centric to reflect the direction of modern medieval studies. The term is one of those unfortunate carryovers from the days of Gibbon.

Yes, it is quite true. As a matter, of fact I referenced this in one of my earlier posts (obliquely it is true, I know that I mentioned the Byzantines [Rhomaioi as I prefer to call them]).

However, referring to the historical period as a whole, I think that the term will probably continue to stick in some sense, at least concerning the study of European history.

It is also called the "Early Medieval Period." For the sake of clarity I will refer to it as such in the future. (Even though this is almost a more nebulous term. )

I definitely see the glass half full.

I certainly wish I were you.

These first hand experiences proved to me the validity of Christian optimism: all things are fundamentally good.

I fear that I take a different view of the source of Christian optimism. I was always under the impression that the source of Christian optimism was the resurrection of Christ that promised a way of ultimate escape out of the mess in which we find ourselves in this world, and worse to come. I don’t recall ever seeing anything that says that all things are good. I do remember reading that all things can work to the good, but that does not say all things are good.

There are the seeds of an interesting discussion there, but I fear that if we continue in that vein much longer the thread will be closed down. I’d love to discuss this further in a more private arena if you would be so inclined.

Before I continue I would also like to say that I did not wish to say that generosity and positive impulses do not exist in humanity. I just do not believe that they are the primary and dominant impulses.

But the world will be changed by the few, it always is.

Yes, but this does not mean that they will change it for the better.

For instance, take the 20th Century (please!)

There were four men of the 20th Century who probably had the greatest impact, judged by the number of lives they affected (or afflicted).

They were Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Ghandi. Of those four only Ghandi was a "nice" guy. The rest were cruel butchers, and yet look at the changes that they wrought in the world.

There were also some other lights like Martin Luther King, but those above four had the greatest impact on the world.

What do you consider a "truly generous impulse"?

That is a reasonable question.

I would answer that a truly generous impulse is doing good because good is something that has value in and of itself.

(Hmm…I think I read something like that in Tolkien’s Letters somewhere, come to think of it. Although, I think that he was talking about Frodo’s pity for Gollum at the time.)

Thus, the reward, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant. You do good because it is good.

So does that make generosity, itself, ultimately selfish?

No.

However, as Tolkien would say, the "Morgoth Element" will almost always come into play, even at times when we are wanting to do right. It is just part of being human.

This has gotten rather abstract all of a sudden.